[blml] The term "cue"

[Eric Landau]

At 12:01 PM 6/27/06, Marvin wrote:

>The ACBL says that "actively ethical players" will disclose all
>pertinentl information when an opponent asks a question, whether or
>not the it is formulated properly ("Please explain your auction").
>Any question should trigger complete disclosure.
>
>Now what we'd like to know is why they don't make this a regulation.

Perhaps because that would require them to come up with a sensible 
definition of what consituted "pertinent" information -- or, more 
likely, leave that task to a plethora of individual TDs and ACS each 
with their own ideas as to what it should be -- which would be 
difficult or impossible to get exactly right.  And then there would be 
players who would parse each word and punctuation mark to allow 
themselves to ignore the spirit and intention of the guideline while 
following its exact letter (as they interpret it), all the time arguing 
that the ethics of our game mean nothing more than following its rules 
literally.

The ACBL, quite cleverly IMO, has come to realize that the way to keep 
the sharpies from parsing every rule looking for "loopholes" through 
which they might gain some advantage unanticipated by the writers of 
the rule is not to give them rules to parse.  Instead, they came up 
with the concept of "active ethics".

Active ethics is a set of principles telling players what to try to do 
(e.g. "disclose all pertinent information...") that deliberately do not 
have specific procedures or definitions associated with them.  Since 
they lack those procedures and definitions, they cannot be enforced 
through the "legal system" of TDs, ACs, etc.  Nevertheless, the ACBL 
officially "expects" all their players to "strive to practice active 
ethics".  So what we get is essentially a set of regulations for which 
the only punishment for a violation is being called "not actively 
ethical", and the only punishment for repeated violation is a 
widespread reputation for being "not actively ethical".  And nobody can 
argue in defense of that reputation that it's not true because if you 
carefully examine that verb tense and that comma it doesn't precisely 
say that I'm not allowed to do whatever it is I did.

Oddly, it works.  The sharpies much prefer to argue with TDs and spend 
hours in front of ACs justifying themselves than to gain a reputation 
as unethical players that they cannot evade with legal sophistry.

>One of San Diego's top players recently explained his partner's
>unAlerted simple raise of a weak two bid as "non-forcing" when my
>partner was considering a balancing 3S bid. Partner passed when
>given this explanation, which should have been something like "That
>is a drop-dead bid which I must pass."

That's not a misexplanation; that's an outright evasion, no better than 
a flat refusal to answer the question.  Does this so-called "top 
player" really know of any partnership anywhere in the world that plays 
a single raise of a weak two-bid as *forcing*?  I'd be very surprised, 
to say the least.

But I'll bet this "top player" could cite chapter and verse as to why 
his non-explanation was not a violation of this or that 
law.  Regardless, word gets around: this guy doesn't "practice active 
ethics", and I'm certain that San Diego's other top players know who he is.

>In the absence of an Alert
>this is the default explanation in ACBL-land,

I'll bet a dollar that that's what the "top player" told the TD/AC in 
his own defense.

>but most club players
>do not know it.

Which is exactly why "active ethics" says don't try to give an exact 
literal answer to the exact literal question that was asked, don't try 
to follow some precise formula, instead just tell them whatever any 
reasonable person would assume that they might need or want to know.


Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607